Search Results

1. UQD Ltd v KN [2020] NZDT 1415 (30 September 2020) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...NZDT 1415 APPLICANT UQD Ltd RESPONDENT KN RESPONDENT INSURER JB Ltd The Tribunal orders: KN is to pay the sum of $2172.40 to UQD Ltd on or before 14 October 2020. Reasons 1. On 25 February 2019 KN negligently caused damage to UQD Ltd’s 1994 Nissan Largo van (fitted out as a campervan) and driven by NH. KN’s liability for the collision was not disputed and KN’s insurance company, JB Ltd, entered into a process with NH (for UQD Ltd...

2. HM and X Ltd v TM [2021] NZDT 1638 (6 July 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...[3] HU said that he had not seen TM in the intersection. He had assumed, because the light had turned green and the car alongside him had moved, that he could safely proceed into the intersection. [4] TM said that he had been following another vehicle along H Street. That vehicle had entered the intersection with X Road and stopped, waiting to turn right. TM had followed it into the intersection and stopped behind it. When the lights turned red he, TM, was caught in the middle of the in...

3. IU v TS [2023] NZDT 585 (8 November 2023) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...admits she was ahead of the applicant in the right-hand lane. Both drivers confirm they were entering the new right turn only lane. The only dispute is who had right of way. [6] The applicant and his insurer claim the respondent is liable as she negligently pulled into the turn only lane without ensuring this manoeuvre could be carried out safely. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 [7] The respondent claims she had right of way because the applicant had no legal right to use the...

4. ABT Ltd v ZYJ Ltd [2013] NZDT 71 (5 June 2013) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...reversing out of ABT’s premises, did the driver of the ZYJ truck drive negligently? (ii) Does the exclusion clause between the customer and ZYJ apply to ABT? (iii) What are the reasonable costs of repair? Law [7] When driving a vehicle, a driver has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid damaging property belonging to others. Any failure to do so breaches that duty and renders the driver liable for the cost of repairing the property. If the driver is an agent for t...

5. NI v CT [2020] NZDT 1382 (14 May 2020) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...the loss by NI a foreseeable loss? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Has FM Limited acted with a standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer? 4. The relevant law is section 5 of the Animals Law Reform Act 1989 and the law of negligence. When determining negligence, the Tribunal must consider the standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer in the company’s position, the common practice in the locality in relation to fencing and the taking of other measures to p...

6. LC Ltd v XU Ltd [2024] NZDT 356 (21 May 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...to provide the footage as they considered it would not be helpful under the circumstances. 3. I am satisfied that LC Ltd were told where to park by BE, and that no specific timeframe for the unloading of tools was given. Is XU Ltd liable in negligence for the damage caused to LC Ltd’s vehicle? 4. The general law of negligence applies. Where damage has been caused to property, the conduct of the party responsible is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person w...

7. NQ v OS [2022] NZDT 109 (10 August 2022) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...from the floor, and flying across the road during the storm? (c) If so, did the breach of duty cause the damage to the vehicle and was it foreseeable? (d) What is the reasonable cost to repair the vehicle? Did OS owe a duty of care? 4. In a negligence claim four elements must be proven. The first is the duty of care. A duty of care arises when parties are in close proximity to each other and it is reasonably foreseeable that if a standard of reasonable care is not adhered to the...

8. SA v TD & I Ltd [2021] NZDT 1646 (4 October 2021) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...the costs claimed established? Did TD cause the collision? 3. I find that TD’s driving was a cause the collision because he attempted to pass SA’s car but was unable to complete the manoeuvre safely. 4. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. The duty to take reasonable care includes a duty to follow the Land Tra...

9. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee No. 1 v Grave [2016] NZLCDT 8 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...Practitioner 2 DECISION OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL AS TO PENALTY AND NAME SUPPRESSION Introduction [1] Mr Grave faced one charge, pleaded with three alternative levels of conduct – misconduct, negligence and unsatisfactory conduct. After negotiations with the Standards Committee, Mr Grave agreed to admit the charge at the level of negligence and this, with an agreed set of facts was put to the Tribunal, along with suggest...

10. QN & Ors v KN [2024] NZDT 29 (28 February 2024) [pdf, 148 KB]

    ...Is QN entitled to $3,223.99 for the costs of repairing the car? 10. KN did not dispute that he drove negligently and is liable for the cost of repairs to the car. The dispute was over the amount payable to QN. 11. The purpose of damages in negligence is to put the person who suffered the damage back in the position they would have been in had the negligent act not occurred. Losses claimed must arise from the negligent act, they cannot be too remote and there is a duty on a claiman...